A message for the Hon Julia Gillard MP Prime Minister of Australia, who seems to prefer her personal opinions to those of the majority of her party and the Australian public.

It is not the argument about same sex marriage that is annoying — reasoned debate is to be expected. What angers me is that Ms Gillard requires Australian public policy to be determined by her personal prejudices based on nothing more than ill-informed attitudes acquired in her childhood.

Image from: fckh8.com.

If the Daily Telegraph (21 Mar 11) is to be believed (a difficult task at the best of times), Prime Minister Gillard has said that her personal stance against same-sex marriage is due to her conservative upbringing.

Ms Gillard said she was "on the conservative side" of the gay marriage issue "because of the way our society is and how we got here".

"I think that there are some important things from our past that need to continue to be part of our present and part of our future," she said. "[...] marriage being between a man and a woman has a special status.

"Now, I know people might look at me and think that's something that they wouldn't necessarily expect me to say, but that is what I believe.

"I'm on the record as saying things like I think it's important for people to understand their Bible stories, not because I'm an advocate of religion — clearly, I'm not — but once again, what comes from the Bible has formed such an important part of our culture."

Ms Gillard said she had a "pro-union, pro-Labor upbringing in a quite conservative family, in the sense of personal values".

I mention this not to argue the case for or against same-sex marriage, but to express astonishment and dismay at the ludicrous way in which Ms Gillard is making public policy.

Ms Gillard's personal upbringing and her personal conservatism are utterly irrelevant. She might attempt to assess the Australian people's views on the question. She might consider the ethics of the matter, or the public policy aspects. But to base public policy on mere attitudes she acquired as a child is unworthy of her and of the nation she purports to lead.

Although I am a Christian myself, I am aghast at the PM's invocation of the Bible. What relevance do 'Bible stories' have to the formulation of public policy on same-sex marriage? None. Some Christians may attempt an argument against same-sex marriage on 'Biblical' grounds, but they would not rely on childish reference to 'Bible stories'!

I do not criticise Ms Gillard for living with a life-partner to whom she is not formally married. But in doing so, does she not demonstrate that, for her, marriage is not important?

Why then does she make public policy about something that is not important to her personally on the basis of ill-informed assumptions about a religion in which she does not believe?

Injustice comes with the territory
by Jon Stanhope Canberra Times 04 Mar 2011

Imagine that the Federal Parliament were today to pass a law that would allow the Prime Minister, on a whim and without reference to anyone else, to instruct the Governor-General to overturn any — or indeed every — piece of legislation the Queensland Parliament passed on behalf of the people of that state. Imagine that Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott decided tomorrow that Tasmania, with a population of about half a million, was really too small to be trusted to legislate on the same matters as other states, and that the Prime Minister ought to be able to overturn any of its laws without mounting an argument, without going to court, just on a fancy.

It's impossible to imagine either scenario becoming a reality at least not without community outrage. Yet today in Australia the people of the ACT — quickly catching up in number to those living in Tasmania — endure precisely this form of second-class citizenship. Any and every ACT law is vulnerable to being overturned by the Prime Minister, in an act of executive fiat, on a whim, thanks to section35 of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988.

It is this section of the Self-Government Act that Senator Bob Brown proposes be amended. From the response of some socially conservative politicians and media commentators, one would imagine he was proposing something extraordinary. In fact, all he proposes is that Australians who, by accident of birth or relocation, happen to live in a territory, have the same rights as Australians living in the states to have their own parliaments legislate on their behalf, and to do so on the same range of topics as the states can legislate, without fear of having those laws overturned without explanation or debate.

Let's be clear: Senator Brown is not seeking to confer superior rights on the territories just equal rights. The claim that Senator Brown's Bill is a stalking horse for gay marriage or other socially progressive agendas is absurd, for the simple reason that any one of the state parliaments in this country could decide tomorrow to legislate for something that could go by the name of '"gay marriage". The ACT could do so too, if it chose. The difference is that if the Commonwealth took issue with a Victorian or Western Australian or South Australian law, it would need to either take the matter to the High Court and argue that the legislation conflicted with the Commonwealth's Marriage Act, or change the Constitution to remove the right of the states to legislate in that area.

In the ACT, the Prime Minister could simply pick up the phone to the Governor-General and tell her to disallow the territory law.

The critics also gloss over the fact that even if Senator Brown's amendment was successful, the Commonwealth would still have a constitutional power to override any ACT law. This is the power that Kevin Andrews relied upon when he introduced into the Commonwealth Parliament legislation that removed the right of the territories to legislate for euthanasia. Undemocratic and egregious as that exercise was, at least Mr Andrews had to stand up in the nation's Parliament and convince his colleagues of the merits of his case. No skulking off to Government House on a whimsy.

The Gillard Government has blood on its hands. Prime Minister Julia Gillard should resign. These tragic drownings at Christmas Island are a direct result of her reckless boat people policies. Again and again she was warned those policies — fatally relaxed in 2008 — would result in exactly this loss of life.
Andrew Bolt Herald Sun 16 Dec 10

Dear Editor,
Andrew Bolt has blood on his hands. He stridently insisted on the invasion and killings in Iraq which led to millions fleeing. Some of those millions ended up in the ocean off Christmas Island on Wednesday.
Andrew Bolt's call, while bodies were still in the ocean, for Julia Gillard’s resignation (but the Labor Party opposed the war in Iraq) lacked human decency. He should resign.
Senator Bob Brown

Greens leader Senator Bob Brown has the Australian Capital Territory (Self Government) Amendment (Disallowance and Amendment Power of the Commonwealth) Bill 2010, which would give the territory's politicians the same rights to legislate as their state colleagues. The ACT Government would strengthen its same-sex civil union legislation if the Governor-General's veto power over local laws were removed.

Under Section 35(2) of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988, the Governor-General may disallow any enactment of the ACT Legislative Assembly within six months of its passing. This power has been used only once—to disallow the Civil Unions Act 2006 that allowed same-sex unions.

ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope says that civil unions are the one area where discrimination against homosexual couples is still legislated in the ACT. "If there were a change of attitude federally in relation to our right to legislate exactly as we see fit in relation to civil unions, I would not turn my back on that opportunity to restore the provisions that existed in our legislation," Mr Stanhope said.

The ACT Government's compromise with the Commonwealth government related to the way the relationship is formed legal. In heterosexual marriages, the ceremony creates the relationship. In same-sex civil partnerships, the relationship is created by the Registrar-General's acceptance of a registration; 177 civil partnerships have been registered, representing around a tenth of a per cent of the Territory's population.